+1 for (a) On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > So, to follow up and summarise this thread so far, the only contentious > point has been the loss of the 'flow to disk' functionality. > > Though the current solution doesn't limit the memory used by a large queue, > it can in certain cases reduce the rate of memory growth which in turn may > buy a little more time to resolve the root cause. So while those using it > are less than fully satisfied, they are (understandably) concerned at having > even this limited solution taken away without having any clear plan to offer > a replacement. > > I have spent a little time thinking through what a better solution might > look like and how much effort it would take. I believe that for ~3-5 weeks > work I could get something better in place. It would be, in the first > instance, posix only[1]. It would be mutually exclusive with lvq or priority > queue options. However it would be a more effective limit on the memory > consumed as such a queue grew, and (I hope) would have a less drastic > performance penalty at larger sizes. > > There are a few options for how to proceed, and I'd like to take a quick > straw poll to see which path the community favours. > > (a) go ahead with the refactor, including the removal of features mentioned > in the previous mail, subsequently focus first on AMQP 1.0 support, only > then return to add paged queue support > > (b) go ahead with the refactor, including the removal of features mentioned > in the previous mail, subsequently focus first on paged queue support, then > proceed to add AMQP 1.0 support > > (c) don't go ahead with the refactor until it can be combined with an > alternative to flow to disk, and only then proceed with AMQP 1.0 support > > (d) don't go ahead with the refactor at all > > I myself favour (a). I think AMQP 1.0 support is more important and more > work and would like to make more progress on that as soon as possible in > order to have something ready for the 0.20 release. I can't guarantee that > this path would result in the 0.20 release having the replacement for flow > to disk functionality, but if not it would come soon after. > > I'm not so keen on (c) because maintain such a large patch against a > continually moving trunk is a lot of work in itself and I think that time > can be better spent. I'm not keen on (d) because I honestly don't think I > can add decent 1.0 support (or fix a number of known issues) without > something like this refactor. > > Anyway, over to you. Let me know what you think, I'm keen we reach some > agreement by the end of the week. In the meantime I'll try and make my > proposal for the flow to disk replacement a bit more concrete. > > --Gordon. > > [1] It will be designed such that it is relatively simple to provide > alternative implementations for the posix functionality such that anyone > with interest can easily add windows support for example. From what I can > tell, it doesn't look like flow to disk is supported on windows at present > anyway. I could be wrong. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
